20 er strategic spatial planning in european city-regions ... · within this context ‘european...
TRANSCRIPT
No
60 – S
ep
te
mbe
r 2010
Strategic Spatial Planning in European
City-Regions: Parallel Processes or
Divergent Trajectories?
Simone Allin
Cormac Walsh
NIR
SA
W
ork
in
g P
ape
r S
erie
s
2
Simone Allin1 and Cormac Walsh
2
Strategic Spatial Planning in European City-Regions:
Parallel Processes or Divergent Trajectories?
Abstract
Drawing on recent experiences of strategic spatial planning in two city-regions
in Europe, the paper seeks to challenge dominant narratives of the emergence
of strategic spatial planning as a uni-dimensional process of policy
convergence. Recognising a need for fine-grained analysis of practices of
spatial planning in diverse territorial and institutional contexts, the paper
presents a framework for contextualised comparative analysis, identifying
multiple levels of differentiation. The application of this comparative
framework is subsequently illustrated with reference to the two city-regions of
Dublin and Erfurt. The paper concludes with an outline of an agenda for
further research.
Key words: Strategic spatial planning, city-regions, comparative analysis,
territorial and institutional context
1. Introduction
Practices of spatial planning in Europe have borne witness to considerable challenges in recent decades as
a consequence of changing policy priorities, heightened expectations and increased socio-economic and
demographic disparities (Albrechts, 2004; Nadin, 2007; Schmidt, 2009). Recent decades have, however,
1 Research Fellow at Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield (United Kingdom). 2 Postdoctoral Research Fellow at National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA), National University of Ireland
Maynooth (Republic of Ireland).
3
also witnessed the emergence of new strategic approaches to spatial planning at local, regional, national
and transnational scales, which have sought to broaden the scope and enhance the governance capacity of
spatial planning in practice (Healey et al., 1997; Albrechts et al., 2003). For Faludi (2000) the purpose of
strategic planning is to inform decision-making in practice, rather than to directly influence material
outcomes (i.e. the object of project plans). From this perspective, strategic (spatial) planning is viewed as
a continuous process, which provides a frame of reference for subsequent decisions and actors (Faludi,
2000, 303). Hopkins (2001) similarly provides a decision-centred instrumental rationale for strategic
planning. He argues that planning may usefully inform future decision-making where decisions are
interdependent, indivisible and irreversible and knowledge of the future is partial or incomplete (Hopkins,
2001, 5). The concept of strategic spatial planning places emphasis on the development of coordinated or
integrated perspectives that transcend traditional sectoral policy divisions through a specific focus on the
spatial impacts of sectoral policies (Albrechts et al., 2003; Salet et al. 2003a; Adams et al., 2006a).
Challenging an instrumentalist view of planning, a number of authors have stressed the role of values in
strategic spatial planning. For Healey (1997) the concept of strategic spatial planning places particular
emphasis on the development of approaches to policy-making where objectives and values relating to
future sociospatial development within a territory or functional space are shaped, framed and negotiated
as part of the strategy-making process. Albrechts (2004) similarly defines strategic spatial planning as a:
‘public-sector-led sociospatial process through which a vision, actions and means for
implementation are produced that shape and frame what a place is and may become’.
He argues that a concern for value rationality or substantive rationality is necessary to counteract an
instrumentality approach where the future is extrapolated through an analysis of current tends (Albrechts,
2004, 750). From this perspective, strategic spatial planning, influenced by communicative planning
theory, is identified as distinct from previous or traditional practice in regional and supra-local planning,
particularly the rational comprehensive model (see also Adams, 2008; Davoudi and Strange, 2009).
4
Strategic spatial planning is, however, recognised as a highly ambiguous concept in planning theory and
practice, ascribed different meanings and interpretations in different contexts (Sartorio, 2005).
The concept of a re-emergence or revival of strategic spatial planning in Europe since the 1990s is more
specifically associated with the development of spatial planning policy and perspectives at the European
scale. In particular the publication of a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (Committee
on Spatial Development, 1999) and the more recent adoption of the principle of territorial cohesion policy
have served to highlight the significance of territorially differentiated perspectives on processes of social
and economic development in the context of the European Union (CEC, 2008; Faludi, 2007a, b, and
2010). The emergence of European spatial planning and territorial cohesion policy has also served to
highlight the need for the territorial integration of European sectoral policies, in light of increased
evidence and concern regarding the differentiated and at times contradictory impact of European Union
sectoral policies and directives in different territorial contexts (Schout and Jordan, 2007).
This paper further explores the concept of strategic spatial planning and its associated practices in
different institutional, cultural and territorial contexts. In particular the paper examines the extent to
which recent developments in spatial planning policy and practice characterised by a shift towards
strategic thinking and communicative modes of practice, reflect parallel processes or divergent
trajectories of change. Section 2 below reviews the existing literature on the role of institutional, cultural
and territorial context on spatial planning in Europe. Two case studies of strategic spatial planning in
practice are subsequently presented in Section 3. The case studies serve to illustrate contrasting
experiences of spatial strategy-making and planning policy reform in two European city-regions (Dublin,
Ireland and Erfurt, Germany). Drawing on the case studies and review of the literature a framework for
contextualised comparative analysis of spatial planning in European city-regions is presented in Section 4.
Section 5 closes the paper with general conclusions and the outline of an agenda for further research.
5
2. Spatial Planning in Comparative Perspective
A process of Europeanisation has been identified as principles of spatial planning with a long tradition in
a number of central European countries, including the Netherlands, France and Germany have become
institutionalised and adopted in European regional and territorial policy discourse largely through
European Union projects and initiatives (Faludi, 2004; Jensen and Richardson, 2004; Kunzmann, 2006).
Within this context ‘European spatial planning’ is viewed as a hybrid model of spatial planning,
borrowing extensively from particular aspects of German Raumplanung, French le aménagement du
territoire and Dutch ruimtelijke ordening (Faludi, 2004). For Böhme and Waterhout (2008) the
Europeanisation of spatial planning may be viewed as a three-fold process encompassing:
1. The emergence of ‘planning for Europe’ through the preparation of the ESDP and the ongoing
institutionalisation of territorial cohesion and spatial development policy;
2. The influence of ‘planning for Europe’ on spatial planning systems, policies and practices within
EU member states – ‘planning in Europe’;
3. The influence of European sectoral policies and European integration on ‘planning in Europe’.
(Source: adapted from Böhme and Waterhout, 2008, 243; Dühr et al., 2010, 360).
It is significant to note that the ‘reorientation’ of national spatial development policies was explicitly
recognised as a core component of the application of the ESDP, while the need for a ‘Europeanisation of
state, regional and urban planning’ was seen to be increasingly evident (CEC, 1999, 45; in: Sykes, 2008,
538).
Lloyd and Peel (2005, 313) note, however, that the interpretation and translation of European spatial
planning in different contexts has strongly ‘national’ characteristics, reflecting a diversity of traditions,
6
policy trajectories, institutional arrangements and political concerns. Drawing extensively on comparative
planning, policy science and European integration literatures, Sykes (2008) further stresses the
importance of context in research on spatial planning in Europe and more specifically on the application
of the ESDP in national and sub-national territorial contexts. He notes that a contextual and comparative
approach reflects both a long-standing emphasis in comparative planning studies on the significance of
historical, cultural and planning contexts and a more recent focus on ‘contextualism’ in post-positivist and
in particular social constructivist approaches to policy analysis (2008, 552).
The Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies published by the European Commission
(CEC, 1997) made explicit reference to the diversity of planning traditions in Europe, arising from
‘historical and cultural conditions, geographical and land-use patterns, the constitutional, administrative
and legal framework, levels of urban and economic development, and political and ideological
aspirations’ (CEC, 1997, 34). It was further noted that the ‘use and meaning’ of particular concepts and
terminology employed in different contexts may reflect territorially specific ‘legal, socio-economic,
political and cultural forces’ (CEC, 1997, 23; see also Fabbro and Haselsberger, 2009). The typology of
‘ideal-types’ produced by the Compendium, however, is framed in terms of an anticipated process of
policy convergence. In particular, the planning systems of the UK and Ireland are identified as moving
away from the land-use regulation ideal-type towards the comprehensive-integrated model of spatial
planning, most strongly associated with the planning systems of Germany and the Netherlands. It may be
argued, however, that the capacity and potential of strategic spatial planning initiatives in countries such
as the UK and Ireland differ significantly from the ideal of comprehensive integrated planning or its
practical manifestations in the Netherlands, Germany or elsewhere. In this context, Albrechts et al. (2003)
have specifically argued for the need for national and sub-national case studies to assess the power of
strategic planning initiatives to substantively shape regulatory practices, budget allocations, project
proposals and spatial development trajectories in practice.
7
More recently the concept of ‘planning culture’ has been employed to refer to the ‘norms, values and
principles that underlie planning practice’ (Dühr et al., 2010, 375). For Friedmann (2005, 184) planning
culture refers specifically to variations in the practice and interpretation of spatial planning in particular
contexts: ‘the ways, both formal and informal, that spatial planning in a given multi-national, region,
country or city is conceived, institutionalised and enacted’. Knieling and Othengrafen (2009, xxiv)
introducing their recent comparative study of planning cultures in Europe place particular stress on
beliefs, values and concepts of justice in addition to political and legal systems and structures of
governance as defining characteristics of distinct planning cultures.
A number of studies have, furthermore pointed to a diversity of factors behind recent shifts in spatial
planning policy and practice, challenging an exclusive focus on the influence of European Union policy
and the application of the ESDP. Albrechts (2004) has indentified an increased recognition of the
shortcomings of traditional approaches and increased environmental awareness as critical drivers leading
to shifts in spatial planning practice in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe. Nadin (2007) identifies
pragmatic concerns regarding the performance and transparency of the existing planning system as
significant in providing support for the concept of the ‘new spatial planning’ in the UK. Harris and
Hooper (2004) point to concerns regarding the coordination of the spatial impacts of a range of sectoral
policies as one of the key drivers behind a shift to spatial strategy-making in the context of the Wales
Spatial Plan.
In more general terms, a number of authors have associated the recent emergence or revival of strategic
approaches to spatial planning in Europe to shifts in the broader institutional and governance landscape.
In particular, a renewed focus on spatial planning as a strategic policy instrument is attributed to an
increased need for consensus-based policy coordination in the context of institutional fragmentation and
increasingly complex intergovernmental relationships (Healey et al., 2002; Salet and Faludi, 2000; Salet
et al., 2003). Although the diversity of state-society relations and political-administrative structures and
traditions in Europe is explicitly acknowledged, it is argued that a number of key trends associated with
8
the decline of national welfare states since the 1980s have led to a profound ‘institutional transformation’
common to all European cities. In particular, economic globalisation and liberalisation and a restructuring
of intergovernmental relationships are identified as critical drivers of institutional and governance
transformation at the metropolitan or regional scale. It is evident that variations in the pace, scale and
intensity of institutional shifts associated with market liberalisation and globalisation on the one hand and
changing intergovernmental relationships on the other may have a very significant influence on emergent
policy discourses and practices of spatial planning in different territorial contexts across Europe. The
particular character of the ‘new spatial planning’ in the UK for example has been strongly influenced both
by ‘New Labour’ political priorities and a rescaling of territorial governance relations through political
and administrative devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Allmendinger and Tewdwr-
Jones, 2006; Haughton et al., 2009).
It is further evident that recent innovations and developments in spatial planning have also been strongly
influenced and shaped by changing socio-economic development patterns and trends. The recent
development and ongoing revision and updating of a comprehensive ‘evidence base’ on European spatial
development patterns and future potentials through the ESPON programmes and related research
initiatives has served to provide insights into the principal challenges and opportunities facing the
European territory (ESPON, 2010; Faludi, 2008; Dühr et al., 2010). Perhaps more significantly, however,
this European-wide research provides substantive, empirical support for the concept of ‘territorial
diversity’ as articulated in Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion and related European policy documents
(CEC, 2008). The systematic analysis of indicators, processes and scenarios of change across European
cities and regions, while undoubtedly part of a process of codification and social construction of the
European space in accordance with particular political and policy agendas (see Jensen and Richardson,
2004; Dabinett and Richardson, 2005) also highlights the extent to which spatial development patterns
and prospects differ across Europe and the extent to which these differences shape the parameters for
action in terms of spatial planning and territorial cohesion policy.
9
The emergent practices of spatial planning in the Eastern European member states of the EU face
significant challenges associated with post-socialist transformation including increased socio-spatial
disparities between cities and regions at a range of geographical scales (Adams, 2008). Many cities in
Germany and neighbouring states have furthermore faced considerable challenges in responding to
population and economic decline, requiring a fundamental rethink of the role of spatial planning in the
context of zero or negative growth (Wiechmann, 2008). In contrast, recent developments in spatial
planning policy in the Republic of Ireland and Spain in particular have occurred against the background
of a very rapid pace of development and population expansion, providing a very real test of the capacity
of the planning system to effectively steer or control the spatial distribution, scale and intensity of
development (Convery et al., 2006; Kitchin et al., 2010; Catalan et al., 2008; Maldonado, 2003; European
Environment Agency, 2006).
The case studies below of strategic spatial planning in the Dublin and Erfurt city-regions illustrate the
relationship between innovation and reform in spatial planning policy and practices and socio-spatial
context in the form of the economic and demographic challenges and opportunities. Whereas the
experience of spatial planning in the Dublin city-region has been one of significant policy reform in the
face of dynamic market-led development conditions, strategic approaches to spatial planning in the Erfurt
city-region have emerged in response to the lack of capacity of the existing statutory systems to
effectively respond to current challenges of economic decline and demographic aging. The case studies
are thus characterised by significant contrasts and consequently serve to illustrate the diversity of
experience of city-regional spatial planning practice in Europe.
10
3. Spatial Planning in Two European City-Regions
The following Sections 3.1 and 3.2 focus on the illustration and analysis of spatial planning practices in
both case studies, Dublin and Erfurt city-regions. In Section 3.3, a critical discussion of both cases is
delivered from both a national and European comparative perspective.
3.1 Dublin City-Region Case Study
Introduction
Recent developments in planning policy in Ireland may be characterised in terms of a shift towards a
more strategic approach to spatial planning. Legislative and policy initiatives introduced since the mid-
1990s have broadened the scope of planning policy from a narrow focus on land-use regulation and
associated economic development objectives to embrace concerns of sustainable development and
balanced regional development in a strategic manner (Bannon, 2004). A national sustainable development
strategy published in 1997 first outlined this new strategic role for planning policy, recognising the
potential for spatial planning strategies to provide mechanisms for policy coordination in a spatial and
environmental context (Government of Ireland, 1997; Walsh, J., 2009). The concept of sustainable
development thus provided the rationale for the introduction of a spatial planning hierarchy, whereby
local interests and development objectives would need to be balanced against national and regional spatial
development objectives. New primary legislation, governing all aspects of planning policy, introduced in
20003, subsequently made provision for the introduction of a hierarchy of spatial plans including Regional
Planning Guidelines (RPGs), and statutory Development Plans and Local Area Plans at the sub-regional
and local scales. Subsequently in 2002 a National Spatial Strategy (NSS, DELG 2002) was published,
3 Planning and Development Act, 2000.
11
informed by key concepts of balanced spatial development and polycentric urban development derived
from European initiatives in strategic spatial planning (Walsh, J., 2009; Davoudi and Wishardt, 2005).
Although the status of County/City Development Plans as the principal statement of planning policy,
informing development control decisions at the Local Authority level has not diminished, the NSS and
RPGs have provided a strategic framework for planning policy at national and regional scales. The NSS,
in particular, as a national statement of spatial development objectives with a twenty year time horizon,
has effectively provided a spatial dimension to other government policies, informing the regional
allocation of public investment programmes through the National Development Plan process (Walsh, J.,
2009).
Socio-economic context
The Dublin city-region has experienced rapid economic growth and demographic expansion from the mid
– 1990s until 2007. High in-migration and natural increase of population, together with trends of
declining household size contributed to a very high demand for residential, commercial and infrastructural
development within the Dublin city-region (see for example Breathnach, 1998; Ellis and Kim, 2001;
Convery et al., 2006). Official statistics indicate that over one third of the existing national housing stock
was built in the 1998-2008 period (DEHLG, 2009). The onset of economic recession and the collapse of
the property market within the Dublin city-region since 2007 have led to a sharp slowdown in rates of
urban development and may lead to a shift to net out-migration over time. Official population projections
however, point to continued high rates of population increase, however, with a projected increase of
17.1% for the Greater Dublin Area over the period 2010-2022 (DRA and MERA, 2010). The Greater
Dublin Area (GDA) comprises two NUTS III Regions and seven Local Authority areas (counties) and
corresponds approximately to the functional area of the Dublin city-region. The population of the GDA in
2006 was almost 1.2 million following an increase of 18% between 1996 and 2006 (Walsh, C., 2009).
The total area of the GDA is approximately 7,810 sq. km. Artificial surfaces in the GDA (urbanised areas)
12
expanded from approximately 479 square kilometres in 1990 to 710 sq. km in 2006, an increase of 48.1%
(McInerney and Walsh, 2009).
A number of previous studies have examined the spatial implications of the Celtic Tiger period of
accelerated economic growth, specifically in relation to the Dublin city-region. Williams and Shiels
(1998, 2000, 2002) identify an increased concentration of development and economic growth in the
Dublin and Mid-East Regions since the mid-1990s, associated with a sectoral shift towards high
technology and high-skill industries (see also Breathnach, 1998). The spatial expansion of the functional
labour market area of the Dublin city-region is further characterised in terms of the emergence of ‘Outer
Leinster’4 as a location for residential development marketed towards people employed in Dublin. It is
argued that residential development has ‘leap-frogged’ established dormitory towns in the Greater Dublin
Area due to a shortage of housing supply within the Dublin Region in particular and significant house-
price differentials between the GDA and other regions (Williams and Shiels, 2002; Williams et al., 2007).
For Scott et al (2006) ‘urban sprawl and dispersed patterns of settlement growth with long-distance
commuting’ are established as the characteristic features of settlement structure within the GDA (see also
Williams and Sheils, 2002). A European Environment Agency study published in 2006 found Dublin to
be a worst-case scenario of urban sprawl in Europe (EEA, 2006)5. The EEA study, however, examined
patterns of land-use change only and did not explicitly examine the demographic drivers of urban growth
or the functional relationships between areas of settlement growth and traditional urban areas within a
city-region.
A Regional Scale Spatial Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area
Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (SPGs) were prepared in 1999, on behalf of the
constituent local and Regional Authorities of the GDA and in conjunction with the central government
4 ‘Outer Leinster’ is understood as the eight counties surrounding the Greater Dublin Area, within the traditional province of
Leinster. 5 The text of the published European Environment Agency does not in fact, include reference to Dublin as a worst case scenario.
This characterisation emerged from a media interview with the lead author at time of publication (McDonald, 2006).
13
Department of the Environment and Local Government (Brady Shipman Martin, 1999). The Guidelines
preceded the legislative provisions of the 2000 Planning and Development Act and relied significantly on
the initiative and collaborative efforts of the managers (chief executive officers) of the Local Authorities
within the region.
They sought to provide firstly a strategic policy framework for spatial coordination between the Local
Authorities within the city-region in matters of spatial planning and secondly a mechanism for integration
between transport and land-use planning at the regional scale. The Guidelines specifically sought to plan
for a period of projected rapid growth and development with a twelve year time horizon. The settlement
strategy of the SPGs sought to reduce ‘urban sprawl’ and contain demand for private transport in
particular. The strategy proposed to consolidate urban development within a designated Dublin
Metropolitan Area and a number of specified development centres within the surrounding the Hinterland
Area (see Figure 1). The objectives of the SPGs thus focussed on the concentration of future growth
within designated development areas. Specifically the SPGs provided distinct spatial development
strategies for the built up area of Dublin and its immediate environs (termed the Metropolitan Area) and
the remaining ‘Hinterland Area’ (SPGs 1999, 84). Nine existing urban settlements were designated as
primary and secondary development centres within the Hinterland Area. The strategy sought to
concentrate future population growth and urban development within the Metropolitan Area and the
designated development centres in the Hinterland Area.
The SPGs envisaged that the designated development centres within the Hinterland Area would expand to
achieve a certain level of critical mass to become self-sufficient in the long-term with minimal
commuting to the Metropolitan Area. It was recognised, however, that significant levels of commuting
would occur from these urban centres to the Metropolitan Area in the short and medium-term. As a
consequence the importance of public transport links to Dublin city was stressed. The Strategic Planning
Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area were prepared as an informal strategy, responding to a recognised
need for a metropolitan or city-regional perspective to guide and coordinate the actions of Local
14
Authorities and infrastructure and service providers within the city-region.
Fig.1: Strategic Planning Guidelines Settlement Strategy (Source: Brady, Shipman Martin et al., 1999,
ix).
15
During the preparation of the SPGs, a considerable emphasis was placed on consultation and negotiation
among the Local Authorities within both the Dublin and Mid-East Regions. Senior management of each
Local Authority were represented on the steering committee governing the strategy preparation process
while a technical committee comprising planning officials and engineers from each Local Authority
ensured the policy principles and spatial development perspective adopted by the SPGs reflected the
thinking and practice of the professional staff of the Local Authorities. The adoption of the SPGs
subsequently, required engagement with the elected members of the local and Regional Authorities. The
consultants commissioned to draft the strategy were the lead authors of the final document and facilitated
the process of strategy-making and consultation. The informal or non-statutory status of the SPGs ensured
that the process of strategy-making centred on the development of institutional and political support for a
strategy that was perceived to reflect the collective spatial development priorities and objectives of the
constituent Local Authorities within the Greater Dublin Area. In practice, experience with previous
regional planning initiatives may have led some Local Authority officials and elected members to have
low expectations in relation to the extent to which such an informal strategy would influence Local
Authority decision-making at the local scale and spatial development practice. In this context, it is
possible that some local councillors in particular, may not have engaged fully with the content and
potential implications of the proposed spatial strategy at the time of preparation.
The Strategic Planning Guidelines, subsequently, however, became part of the statutory planning system
with introduction of revised primary legislation in 2000 (Planning and Development Act, 2000). More
significantly the spatial strategy adopted by the SPGs served to inform the preparation and policy
direction of the National Spatial Strategy published in 2002 (DELG, 2002) and became the model for the
preparation of statutory Regional Planning Guidelines adopted by each of the eight Regions in the state in
2004. The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (RPGs, Dublin Regional Authority
and Mid-East Regional Authority, 2004) endorsed the spatial development strategy of the SPGs with
minor revisions to the boundary of the Metropolitan Area and classification of development centres. A
16
statutory review of the Regional Planning Guidelines to be completed in 2010 indicates continued
institutional and political support for the spatial strategy of the RPGs, notwithstanding considerable
evidence of divergence between the spatial development patterns and the strategic objectives of the
regional planning strategy (Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority, 2010). The
institutional embedding and periodic official reaffirmation of the core spatial development strategy of the
SPGs through the RPGs process points to the significant ‘regenerative capacity’ of the original 1999
strategy, to employ the terminology of Mastop and Faludi (1997). It may be argued that the spatial
strategy of the SPGs has become part of the ‘planning doctrine’ for the Greater Dublin Area (Faludi,
2000).
Despite the continuity of key concepts, the source of legitimating authority for the regional-scale spatial
strategies has altered significantly over time. Whereas the SPGs derived their authority and governance
capacity through a process of consultation among the constituent Local Authorities, the preparation of the
Regional Planning Guidelines was framed within the context of the implementing national policy and the
National Spatial Strategy in particular. The embedding of the regional planning process within the
statutory planning system thus facilitated a rescaling of planning policy formulation and governance from
the local to the national scale. In practice Local Authorities are required to have regard for the RPGS in
the preparation of statutory spatial plans at the local level (City and County Development Plans). There is
no requirement, however, for Local Authority spatial plans to be consistent with the RPGs.
The capacity of the planning system to steer the spatial distribution of development at the regional scale
towards the Metropolitan Area and growth centres, designated in the S/RPGs has been relatively weak
however (Convery et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2006; Williams and Shiels, 2002). In practice, planning policy
decisions at the local scale have largely facilitated market-led development informed by a competitive
politics of place promoted by political decision-makers, representing individual localities rather than the
strategic governance priorities set out in the Strategic/Regional Planning Guidelines. In legislative terms
the local planning authorities, with primary responsibility for spatial planning must ‘have regard to’ the
17
S/RPGs in the making of their Development Plans but these sub-regional plans are not required to be
consistent with the settlement strategy of the S/RPGs.
Williams and Shiels (2002) point to an ‘absence of serious funding commitments or proposals for
implementation and identify a number of planning proposals by Local Authorities which were
inconsistent with the SPGs. Williams (2006) further notes that the spatial form of recent development
does not conform to settlement strategy of the RPGs. Convery et al. (2006) contend that the ‘largely
voluntary’ nature of the Regional Planning Guidelines and National Spatial Strategy may hinder prospects
for effective implementation and suggest the potential for strengthening the regional tier of governance.
These studies have identified a significant divergence between the settlement strategy of the S/RPGs and
development patterns over the years following the publication of the SPGs and subsequently RPGs. It
may be argued that the governance capacity of the Strategic Planning Guidelines has been constrained by
a legacy of past planning policy decisions, including a tendency towards zoning significantly more land
than required for development, reducing the capacity of spatial plans to provide a reliable indicator of
future development trends at the sub-regional scale.
3.2 Erfurt City-Region Case Study
Introduction
Within the last two decades, both international and European environmental and spatial policy
developments have impacted significantly on the overall planning policy framework in Germany.
Examples for these policy developments are the establishment of the common principle of sustainable
(urban/spatial) development, and various European regulations and the corresponding need for
implementing directives in fields such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental
18
Assessment, and access to environmental information.6 Thus, a series of significant amendments have
been incoporated in the German federal planning legislation framework, namely the amendments in 1998
(> incorporation of principle of sustainable development), 2004 (> implementation of SEA Directive) and
in 2007 (> introduction of new kind of local land use plans for innercity developments).
The new regulatory requirements have an impact on existing procedural, instrumental and institutional
frameworks of spatial planning in Germany: regional and local planning bodies face the need for further
promoting strategic approaches and for establishing inter-institutional partnerships and associations in
order to implement strategic spatial development goals at the (city-) regional scale.
Similar to the above-described situation in Ireland, the German federal government published a national
sustainable development strategy in 2002. This strategy is meant to shape various sorts of regional and
local policies and highlights, for example, the role of regional and land use planning to achieve the goal of
reducing the use of previously undeveloped (greenfield) land. In particular, the strategy aims at promoting
more sustainable land use policies in the context of future residential developments (The Federal
Goverment, 2002). Thus, regional and local planning bodies are especially required to develop sustainable
responses to ongoing structural demographic shifts and (socio-economic) shrinking processes in many
German regions. The overall goal is a significant reduction of the daily use of greenfield land for
residential and transport purposes (> 129 hectares per day in 2000; aim for 2020 is 30 hectares per day
only). However, the progress report on the national sustainability strategy (The Federal Government,
2008) states that the achievement of the so-called ‘30 ha goal’ is at major risk. Between 1992 and 2006,
the increase in use of greenfield land for housing and transport amounted to 120 hectares per day.
Between 2003 and 2006, 113 hectares of greenfield sites were used. Consequently, a lot more effort is
still needed in order to reverse this trend.
6 For Environmental Impact Assessment see EIA Directive (85/337/EEC), amended by Directives 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC, and
2009/31/EC; for Strategic Environmental Assessment see SEA Directive 2001/42/EC; for Public Access to Environmental
Information see Directive 2003/4/EC (http://ec.europa.eu/legislation/index_en.htm, accessed 24/06/2010).
19
Related recommendations focus on the development of more effective measurements and instruments in
order to implement national policy goals at all spatial scales. Furthermore, strategies for an effective
reduction of greenfield developments, especially in rural areas adjacent to large urban areas are required.
In this context, an important amendment was incorporated in the federal planning code in 2007: The
emphasis here is on the use of brownfield sites for urban development through the introduction of a new
planning instrument: A special type of local land use plans (see § 13a BauGB) is targeted to provide an
effective planning basis for inner-city developments (p. 145). In addition, further promotion of applied
urban development and land use research activities and networks such as the ‘Research for the Reduction
of Land Consumption and for Sustainable Land Management’ (REFINA, released in 2004) can be
highlighted. These initiatives emphasise cross-sectoral approaches, knowledge transfer, innovative
information and communication strategies, and the general promotion of public awareness of the topic of
land use for urban development. Overall, it can be concluded that continuous federal effort is needed to
achieve the ’30 ha goal’. In particular, the German Laender, regions and municipalities play a crucial role
in its further promotion through the development of sustainable land use planning and management
policies.
At the federal level, a number of new concepts and policy approaches to spatial development in Germany
have been issued by the ‘Standing Conference of Federal and State Ministers Responsible for Spatial
Planning’ (German acronym: MKRO) in 2006 (see BBR/BMVBS, 2006). Related documents provide a
federal policy framework for spatial development and replace the former ‘Spatial Planning Policy
Guidelines and Spatial Planning Policy Framework for Action’ (1992/1993). The new approaches address
important socio-economic challenges by means of the development of (rather pragmatic) policy
strategies. The three new central concepts are
- ‘Growth and Innovation’, which refers to the definition of so-called ‘European Metropolitan
Regions’ as identified in the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy in 2000,
20
- ‘Maintaining Essential Services’, also described as safeguarding of services of public interest
such health care and education infrastructure, and
- ‘Saving Resources, Designing Cultural Landscapes’, which broadly refers to the context of
conservation of natural resources, and future shaping of cultural landscapes.
However, Staats (2006, 11f.) argues that further effort is needed to achieve a better integration of sectoral
policies such as transport, infrastructure and landscape planning. In addition, he demands a more effective
involvement of social groups, stakeholders and agencies. Thus, a stronger consensus about priorities and
goals of spatial development and better integration of different spatial planning instruments at various
scales is necessary. Figure 2 provides an overview of the current German system of spatial planning from
the federal/national scale to the local scale.
Fig. 2: German System of Spatial Planning – An Overview (Source: BBR/BMVBS, 2006, 7).
The above described developments in planning legislation and corresponding changes to the overall
planning policy framework in Germany impact significantly on regional and local planning contexts. For
21
example, Erfurt city-region is one of the regions in Eastern Germany that has experienced the
consequences of dramatic spatial and socio-economic shifts and now faces huge pressures on regional and
local planning bodies and agencies. The latter are urged to provide robust governance capacity and
structures by the development of effective development strategies and sound planning policies that meet
the new regulatory requirements as well as those derived from very practical tasks on site.
Socio-economic context
The City of Erfurt represents the centre of the planning region ‘Mid-Thuringia’, and it also marks the
administrative centre and capital of the Free State of Thuringia. The sixteen German federal states define
so-called planning regions within their territory. These planning regions are responsible for the
preparation of regional plans and development strategies for their sub-territories.7 The Free State of
Thuringia, for example, consists of four independent planning regions, i.e. North, Mid, East and
Southwest Thuringia (TMBLM, 2009a). The State Development Plan (approved and published in 2004)
provides overall planning guidance in terms of objectives and principles of spatial structure, settlement
and ‘central places’, and transportation network for the territory of the Federal State and, thus, it covers
all four planning regions (see Figure 3).
‘Mid-Thuringia’ has a total area of approx. 3,740 km2 and its approximately 685,000 inhabitants represent
30% of the population of the Free State as a whole (dated 31 December 2007 (TMBLM, 2009a).8 The
current formal regional plan (approved in 1999) is the core instrument of regional planning and refines the
principles and goals of the state development programme. It is intended to provide a link between spatial
planning at the state scale and the subsequent local scale. The regional plan focuses on issues such as the
promotion of sustainable economic development, the provision of adequate educational, cultural and
7 In Germany, a traditional and long-established system of formal regional and local planning procedures and instruments is in place. At the level
of the ‘Bundesländer’ (= Federal States), there exists a two-tier system of regional planning: With regard to planning for the territory of a federal
state as a whole, the so-called ‘Landesentwicklungsplan’ or ‘Landesentwicklungsprogramm’ (= state development plan or programme) provides guidance for the spatial structure of the state in general. At the level of the so-called Planning Regions, the state development programme is
specified by means of regional plans and regional development strategies (Pahl-Weber and Henckel, 2008).
8 See also Ministry of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure (= ‘Thüringer Innenministerium’) (ed.), 'Regionaler Raumordnungsplan Mittelthüringen'. Thüringer Staatsanzeiger, Beilage zu Nr. 40/1999. 9. Jahrgang. In German.
22
transport infrastructure, and the further development of sustainable tourism in the historic cities and towns
of the regions.
Fig. 3: State Development Plan Thuringia (Source: Thüringer Minister für Bau, Landesentwicklung und
Verkehr, http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmblv/rolp/plaene/content.html, accessed 03/09/2010).
The City of Erfurt itself has experienced a significant population decline between 1990 and 2002 (from
224,073 inhabitants in 1990 to 196,517 inhabitants in 2002 (Erfurt, 2007)). Both economic migrations
towards Western Germany and exceptionally low birth rates after 1990 are the main reasons for this
development (Allin, 2001). Between 2002 and 2006, Erfurt’s population was recovering and, in 2006,
more than 202,000 people were living in Erfurt (TLS, 2007). However, recent population projections for
the planning region ‘Mid-Thuringia’ indicate a further population decline of 6-8% until 2020 (RPGMT,
2010). This development is accompanied by the trend of a significantly aging population (TLS, 2007).
With regard to economic development trends in the city-region, a moderate growth of the so-called BIP
23
(‘Bruttoinlandsprodukt’ = Gross Domestic Income, equivalent to GDP) with annual growth rates between
0.5% and 4.1% between 1998 and 2008 were recorded at the federal state level (TLS, 2009). However, a
constantly high unemployment rate of about 14% represents one of the major (social and economic)
challenges within Erfurt city-region (Erfurt, 2008). Thus, present socio-economic development trends
within the city-region require urgent action and integrated spatial planning and cross-sectoral policy
approaches to cope with the corresponding challenges and general conditions of shrinking.
A Regional Scale Spatial Planning Vision/Strategy for the Erfurt City-Region
In the region of ‘Mid-Thuringia’ (as in most German planning regions), the traditional formal regional
plan is accompagnied by a series of informal regional development and regional management strategies.
Related initiatives and policies aim at an improved coordination and implementation of regional
development goals. To this end, they engage a wide range of regional and local stakeholders across
departments, organisations, and social backgrounds (TMBLM, 2009c). Generally, these informal
structures are based on the joint agreement to implement an integrated Regional Development Concept (in
German: ‘Regionale Entwicklungskonzepte’ (REK)). These concepts again highlight the particular
development potentials of a region, emphasise synergistic effects and, in addition, outline a number of
specific regional and sub-regional development projects and corresponding action plans with a short
and/or medium term perspective (TMBLM, 2009c).
Currently, a total of 41 Regional Development Concepts exist all across Thuringia. They are managed by
an inter-ministerial task force supervising their general consistency with the formal Regional
Development Plans (TMBLM, 2009b). For example, Erfurt City Council collaborates with the villages of
Alperstedt and Nöda (both situated towards the north of Erfurt) to develop a regional development
concept called ‘Erfurter Seen’ (= Lakes of Erfurt). The concept focuses on a bundle of actions and
projects aiming at the promotion of regional recreation and tourism infrastructure in combination with the
24
implementation of sustainable economic development strategies (AG Erfurter Seen, 2009). The overall
‘Leitbild’ of the concept emphasises the regeneration and development of the region from a former
heavily industrialised one to a ‘landscape park’ with outstanding recreation facilities and amenities
providing a high quality of life for both residents and visitors.
Further to this, planning and coordination of spatial development at the sub-regional level in Thuringia is
supported by so-called strategic ‘Städtekooperationen’ (= City Networks). They can be characterised as
voluntary city-to-city cooperations in order to enhance sustainable economic competitiveness by bundling
of resources and strategic task sharing (TMBLM, 2009d).
In addition to this, another interesting approach to the development of more effective and sustainable
regional development and regeneration strategies is the project-based concept of so-called
‘Modellvorhaben der Raumordnung (MORO)’ (in English: Best Practice Examples of Regional Spatial
Development). In Thuringia, corresponding initiatives that integrate both regional and local planning
authorities focus on the further promotion of innovative land use planning and management policies.
They aim at high quality housing developments within the overall context of regional shrinking processes.
These developments are required to be integrated in an overall framework of regional regeneration
policies and partnerships. The goal is to develop coordinated strategies that are accepted by all involved
stakeholders. In addition, the strategies provide appropriate instruments for implementation that can also
serve as a basis for revision and future amendments of (oftentimes outdated and, thus, rather ineffective)
formal regional planning policies. For example, the formal regional plan – as most of its kind – is still
based on the traditional concept of ‘Central Place Theory’. Although meanwhile strongly criticised by
both planning theorists and practitioners, this theory still represents the core rationale and, thus, one of the
main fundamental principles of most regional plans and corresponding policies across Germany.
25
3.3 Discussion of Case Studies
In the Dublin city-region, a significant divergence is evident between the strategic policy objectives of
the S/RPGs and spatial development patterns over the period since their initial adoption in 1999. This lack
of conformance reflects the limited capacity of statutory spatial plans in the Irish planning system to
reduce uncertainty in relation to the spatial distribution of development. It may be argued, however, that
the capacity to guide the spatial distribution of development in the Dublin city-region was particularly
limited in the dynamic market-led development context of the Celtic Tiger period of rapid economic
growth and property development. Recent policy and institutional developments point to the emergence
of an increasingly ‘plan-led’ system, where Local Authority spatial plans are prepared within the context
of strategic planning policies and guidelines produced at national and regional scales. The capacity for
strategic spatial planning in practice, however, continues to be constrained by a legacy of excessive
zoning of land for residential development and a dominant governance culture characterised by
institutional fragmentation and competition between Local Authorities for commercial investment and
large-scale developments. In institutional terms, however, the introduction of the regional-scale spatial
planning strategies may be viewed as part of a longer-term process of institutional change, involving the
application of strategic spatial planning principles and requiring a shift in the established paradigms,
procedures and the prevailing expectations of policy-makers, professional planners and political decision-
makers.
Although the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area have become part of the statutory
planning system, they constitute non-binding statements of strategy which seek to inform spatial
development decision-making by Local Authorities, other public sector actors and private development
interests. The RPGs are framed in the context of implementing the National Spatial Strategy but their
application in practice continues to depend on the capacity of the regional planning process to provide a
framework for coordination and consensus-building among local scale actors with statutory responsibility
for development control and the regulation of land-use in practice. From this perspective the formal or
26
informal status of the regional planning strategies may be viewed as less important than the capacity of
the strategic planning process to provide a framework for the institutional capacity building, coordination
and collaboration among actors in spatial development at the local, regional and national scales of
governance. The performance of such spatial planning strategies in practice, may, however, depend
significantly on their capacity to inform and direct decision making on the allocation of public sector
resources and reduce incentives for territorial competition among Local Authorities.
Spatial planning in the city-region of Erfurt is confronted with the need for more flexible, innovative and
integrative mechanisms in the face of criticism regarding the overly rigid and inflexible nature of
traditional planning hierarchies and principles and corresponding formal plans at the (city-)regional level.
However, the latter still represent the ultimate basis and rationale for most decision and policy making in
the context of spatial planning and development. The development of more strategic approaches to land
use planning and related policy development as well as the simultaneous establishment of efficient
partnerships to implement these policies are thus two of the most important current and future challenges.
This especially holds true for the overall context of socio-economic shrinking at both the regional and the
city level.
Concluding, in the context of potentials for further general development of the German planning system it
is to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of planning policies while maintaining a reasonable level
of certainty. The latter is at least understood as one of the core benefits of the traditional planning culture
and existing planning system in Germany. So, and again similar to the situation in the Dublin city-region,
the recently formed informal networks of regional actors and their more strategic (but non-binding)
approaches to spatial planning and development in the Erfurt city-region need to prove that they are
complementary to the system of formal planning and that they are also able to contribute to and, thus, to
provide a framework for institutional capacity building, coordination and collaboration at respective
scales of governance. In face of the rather disillusioning achievements regarding a more sustainable
regional development and use of land to date, such a highly integrative framework will have to
27
incorporate both formal and informal initiatives and aspects as long-term and sound basis of policy
development.
4. A Framework for Comparative Analysis of Spatial Planning in European Cities and Regions
The review of the literature on spatial planning in comparative perspective in section 2 and the case
studies in section 3 indicate the multiple dimensions across which similarities and differences and
convergent and divergent trajectories may be found in spatial planning practices in Europe. In this
section, a framework for comparative analysis is presented and subsequently applied to the Dublin and
Erfurt case studies. The framework seeks to move beyond classifications of planning systems which focus
almost exclusively on formal administrative and instrumental aspects to the neglect of aspects of
governance culture, institutional and socio-economic context which characterise and differentiate
planning practice. On this basis five levels of differentiation are identified:
Legal and administrative frameworks;
Planning instruments;
Institutional context and governance cultures;
Political objectives and policy priorities.
Spatial development and socio-economic challenges.
The legal and administrative dimension relates to the formal statutory and regulatory framework within
which national planning systems have evolved. Comparative studies of planning systems in Europe have
highlighted key differences between Anglo-Saxon and Napoleonic legal traditions and discretionary and
binding systems of land-use regulation (Newman & Thornley 1996; CEC, 1997). The dimension of
planning instruments relates to the range of instruments, mechanisms and tools, available within
particular planning systems which may include binding land-use plans, informal spatial strategies and
financial mechanisms. The extent to which planning instruments have the capacity to regulate, shape or
28
construct markets is a central determinant of the overall governance capacity of planning systems and
practices (Adams & Tiesdell, 2010).
As discussed in section 2, a substantive body of literature has explored the influence of institutional
context and governance and planning cultures on spatial planning practice in different territorial contexts.
Institutional capacity building and the development of collaborative governance cultures have been
identified as core aspects of the process of strategic spatial planning (Healey, 1997, 1998; Healey et al.,
2002). More recent studies of planning cultures have emphasised the significance of different
interpretations of the role of the planning discipline and profession in different contexts (e.g. Knieling &
Othengrafen, 2009). Studies of strategic spatial planning in the UK have identified the need for ‘culture
change’ among the planning profession as a principal element in the delivery of planning reform (Shaw
and Lord, 2007, Morphet, 2011).
Changing political objectives and policy priorities also have a significant influence on the parameters and
scope of spatial planning over time as is evident in a perceived shift in emphasis from territorial cohesion
to economic competiveness in European spatial development policy (Doucet, 2006; Vanolo, 2010) and
the influence of the ‘New Labour’ in the UK (Tewdwr-Jones 2004; Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones,
2009). Lastly, the diverse spatial development and socio-economic challenges facing cities and regions in
Europe may have a very significant influence on spatial planning in practice as the Dublin and Erfurt case
studies in section 3 serve to illustrate.
This framework is not intended to be definitive, nor are the dimensions of differentiation necessarily
mutually exclusive. It is presented here as an aid to facilitate a systematic multidimensional comparison
of case studies. An initial application of the analytical framework is presented in Table 1, drawing on the
case studies outlined in section 3 and existing literature on spatial planning in Ireland and Germany.
29
Levels of Differentiation Dublin Erfurt
Legal and administrative
frameworks
Discretionary system of land-use
regulation located within highly
centralised policy and governance
framework
Strong tradition of spatial planning at all
levels of government including binding
local land-use plans. Significant
emphasis placed on coordination and
negotiation across levels of government.
Planning Instruments
Strong reliance on development control
instruments. Introduction of strategic
plans at national and regional levels
since late 1990s increasing scope for
spatial planning to influence other
policy sectors
Traditional reliance on formal statutory
plans that provide a high level of
certainty but are found to be inflexible
in the face of contemporary spatial
development challenges. Recent use of
informal strategies in parallel to
statutory plans
Institutional context and
governance cultures
Predominantly sectoral institutional
framework and locally-orientated
governance culture. Institutional and
capacity building and a shift in
governance cultures are identified as
necessary elements to effect a transition
to a ‘plan-led’ system
Integrated territorial approach to policy-
making is comparatively well
developed. Recent strategic initiatives
have sought to engage a wider range of
stakeholders in policy-making to
increase the capacity to respond to
contemporary challenges
Spatial development and
socio-economic
challenges
Rapid market-led growth over ‘Celtic
Tiger period (c. 1994 – 2007) followed
by sharp collapse in property markets
and economic recession
Ongoing structural demographic shifts
and (socio-economic) shrinking
processes with far-ranging spatial
consequences since German
reunification in 1990
Political objectives and
policy imperatives
Increased emphasis on sustainable
development since 1997. Traditional
tendency to equate spatial development
with economic development leading to
laissez faire planning system, increased
emphasis on economic competitiveness
in recent years.
Strong emphasis on sustainable land-use
development objectives since 2002.
Increasingly pragmatic orientation to
federal policy since 2006. Focus on
economic competiveness tempered by
sustainable development concerns
Table 1: Framework for Comparative Analysis Applied to the Dublin and Erfurt Case Studies
30
5. Conclusions
This paper has identified the need for a contextualised approach to the study of spatial planning practices
in European cities and regions. It presents a framework for comparative analysis and demonstrates its
application in relation to two illustrative case studies focussed on contrasting recent experience of city-
regional spatial planning. Although significant commonalities are found, it is evident that there is no
single narrative of a shift to strategic spatial planning in Europe. The diversity of spatial development
challenges, legal and administrative systems, institutional contexts, governance cultures and planning
instruments in Europe makes it difficult to talk of policy convergence. Parallel, diverging or converging
trajectories of change may found across the different dimensions of analysis.
Looking to the future, strategic spatial planning at the city-regional scale in Germany may be expected to
be characterised by a focus on a number of distinct procedural aspects including the development of
integrative and collaborative spatial policies at the city-regional level and an emphasis on innovation and
transfer of good practice. In addition a number of substantive elements may be identified including further
promotion of the ‘European City’, further consideration of environmental and social sustainability in the
context of demographic shrinking and aging and the preferential development of brownfield sites. Current
trends in the Dublin-city region and in Ireland more widely point to a further embedding of strategic
spatial planning within a statutory planning system characterised by an increasingly strict hierarchy of
spatial and land-use plans. In the context of the current recession and collapse in housing market, it is
likely that the potential role of spatial planning in market regulation will be critically reassessed. At the
same time city-regional scale spatial strategies are likely to place an enhanced emphasis on questions of
economic competitiveness, leading to further challenges with respect to European and national policy
goals of territorial cohesion and balanced regional development. Spatial planning strategies may
increasingly serve to provide a focus for cross-sectoral policy coordination although this will depend
significantly on institutional support and targeted allocation of public sector resources (see also Haughton
et al 2010, 248).
31
In addition, the paper has pointed to the significance of the critical juncture between strategic policy
making and formal regulatory and legal aspects of spatial planning. Thus, the integrated and
complementary use of formal and informal instruments and mechanisms seems to be one possible and
also very promissing way to develop more ‘resilient’ plans and planning policy frameworks in terms of
evolving problems and challenges in both the Dublin and Erfurt city-region.
The framework for comparative analysis of spatial planning practices in Europe presented in this paper
provides a point of departure for an enhanced comparative understanding of the ‘governance capacity’ of
spatial planning systems, policies and strategies within diverse territorial contexts. In the context of a
review of early ‘innovative examplars’ of regional-scale strategic spatial planning initiatives in Europe,
Albrechts et al. (2003, 115) asked:
‘What is their power to shape project proposals, budget allocations, and regulatory practices
across a whole array of actors… Do they have the persuasive power to shift territorial
development trajectories…?
This critical questioning continues to be as relevant and necessary in the current context, although a
significant body of literature on European spatial planning has emerged and developed in the intervening
period. As an analytical concept, governance capacity may be understood both in terms of the capacity to
guide the spatial distribution of development and the capacity to act as a framework for the coordination
of the spatial impacts of sectoral policies in light of the wider policy coordination ambitions associated
with more recent spatial strategies. The two case studies presented in this paper highlight the extent to
which the governance capacity of spatial strategies may in practice be highly contingent on the
specificities of context within which the strategy is produced (whether it is one of dynamic, market-led
development, or socio-economic shrinking and demographic aging).
It is evident, however that further contextual comparative analysis of spatial planning in Europe will
require the development of an interactive dialogue among academic researchers, policymakers and
planning practitioners. Such a dialogue would enable a fuller understanding of the specificity or
generality of contemporary spatial development trends and ongoing processes of change within different
32
territorial contexts and facilitate knowledge transfer that is constructive and informative for all
stakeholders. An interactive dialogue on this basis, may further serve to create a bridge between the
abstract theoretical focus on process and procedural aspects in the planning theory literature and the
grounded empirical focus on territorial diversity and spatial development challenges characteristic of
ESPON and similar policy-orientated research initiatives.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Brendan Williams (University College Dublin) and John Henneberry,
Malcolm Tait and Craig Watkins (University of Sheffield) who commented on earlier drafts of this paper.
The paper in part draws on PhD research conducted by one of the authors at the School of Geography,
Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin.
33
References
Adams, D. & Tiesdell S. (2010) Planning as Market Actors: Rethinking State-Market Relations in Land
and Property, Planning Theory and Practice, 11, (2), 187-207.
Adams, N. (2008) Convergence and Policy Transfer: An Examination of the Extent to which Approaches
to Spatial Planning have converged within the Context of an Enlarged EU, International Planning
Studies, 13, (1), 31-49.
Adams, N., Alden, J. & Harris, N. (2006a) Introduction: Regional Development and Spatial Planning in
an Enlarged European Union, in Adams, N., Alden, J. & Harris, N. (eds) Regional Development and
Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union, Aldershot: Ashgate, 3-16.
AG Erfurter Seen (2009) 'Das Regionale Entwicklungskonzept (REK)'. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Erfurter
Seen. http://www.erfurter-seen.de/rek/konzept.htm, accessed 24/07/2009. In German.
Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined, Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 31, (5), 743-758.
Albrechts, L., Healey, P. & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003) Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance
in Europe, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, (2), 113.
Allin, S. (2001) 'Rahmenmasterplanung Großwohnsiedlungen – am Beispiel Erfurt'. Diploma thesis in
Spatial and Environmental Planning at the University of Kaiserslautern (Germany). 2001. In German.
Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2006) Territory, Identity of Spatial Planning, in Tewdwr-Jones,
M. & Allmendinger, P. (eds) Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning: Spatial Governance in a
Fragmented Nation. London and New York: Routledge, 3-21.
Allmendinger, P., Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2009) Embracing Change and Difference in Planning Reform: New
Labour's Role for Planning in Complex Times, Planning Practice and Research, 24, 1, 71-81.
34
BBR/BMVBS Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung/Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung (2006): Perspectives of Spatial Development in Germany, Bonn/Berlin.
Böhme, K. & Waterhout, B. (2008) The Europeanisation of Spatial Planning, in Faludi, A. (ed) European
Spatial Research and Planning, Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Catalan, B., Sauri, D. & Serra, P. (2008) Urban sprawl in the Mediterranean? Patterns of growth and
change in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region 1993–2000, Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, (3-4),
174-184.
Commission of the European Communities (1997) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and
Policies, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: Turning
territorial diversity into strength, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/index_en.htm,
accessed 12/04/2010.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective:
Towards a Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union, Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Committee for Spatial Development (1999) The European Spatial Development Perspective,
Luxembourg: European Commission.
Convery, F., McInerney, D., Sokol, M. & Stafford, P. (2006) Organising Space in a Dynamic Economy –
Insights for Policy from the Irish Experience, Built Environment, 32, (2), 172-183.
Dabinett, G. & Richardson, T. (2005) The Europeanization of Spatial Strategy: Shaping Regions and
Spatial Justice through Governmental Ideas, International Planning Studies, 10, (3-4), 201-218.
35
Davoudi, S. & Strange, I. (2009) Space and Place in Twentieth Century Planning: an Analytical
Framework and Historical Review, in Davoudi, S. & Strange, I. (eds) Conceptions of Space and Place in
Strategic Spatial Planning. London: Routledge, 7-42.
Doucet, P. (2006) Territorial Cohesion of Tomorrow: A Path to Cooperation or Competition? European
Planning Studies, 14, (10), 1473-1485.
Dühr, S., Colomb, C. & Nadin, V. (2010) European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation,
London: Routledge.
Erfurt (2007) Landeshauptstadt Erfurt Stadtverwaltung, 'Bevölkerung der Stadt Erfurt 2007 – Bestands-
und Bewegungsdaten'. Kommunalstatistisches Heft 64. Erfurt 2007. http://www.erfurt.de, accessed
24/05/2009. In German.
Erfurt (2008) Landeshauptstadt Erfurt Stadtverwaltung, 'Erfurter Statistik – Statistischer
Halbjahresbericht I/2008'. Erfurt 2008. http://www.erfurt.de, accessed 27/05/2009. In German.
ESPON (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (2010) DEMIFER:
Demographic and Migratory Flows Affecting European Regions and Cities – Draft Final Report,
http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_AppliedResearch/demifer.html, accessed 09/08/2010.
European Environment Agency (2006) Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Challenge, EEA Report 10.
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Fabbro, S. & Haselsberger, H. (2009) Spatial Planning Harmonisation as a Condition for Trans-National
Cooperation: The Case of the Alpine-Adriatic Area, European Planning Studies, 17, (9), 1335-1356.
Faludi, A. (2000) The Performance of Spatial Planning, Planning Practice and Research, 15, (4), 299-
318.
Faludi, A. (2004a) Spatial Planning Traditions in Europe: Their Role in the ESDP Process. International
Planning Studies, 9, (2-3), 155-172.
36
Faludi, A. (2007a) Making Sense of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union. European Journal of
Spatial Development; Refereed Articles, 25, http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed25.pdf, accessed
25/05/2010.
Faludi, A. (2007b) (ed) Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of Society, Cambridge, MA,
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Faludi, A. (2010) European Spatial Planning: Past, Present and Future, Town Planning Review, 81, (1), 1-
22.
Friedmann, J. (2005) Globalisation and the Emerging Culture of Planning, Progress in Planning, 64, 183-
234.
Hajer, M. (2003) Discourse analysis and the study of policy making, European Political Science, 2(1),
61-65.
Harris, N. & Hooper, A. (2004) Rediscovering the Spatial in public policy and planning: an examination
of the spatial content of sectoral policy documents, Planning Theory and Practice, 5, (2), 147-169.
Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D. & Vigar, G. (2010) The New Spatial Planning: Territorial
management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries, London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1998) Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning,
Environment and Planning: A, 30, (9), 1531-1546.
Healey, P. (2003) The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial
Strategy Formation, in Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. S. (eds) Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, 234-258.
37
Healey, P., Cars, G., Madanipour, A. & De Magalhaes, C. (2002) Transforming Governance,
Institutionalist Analysis and Institutional Capacity, in Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A. & De
Magalhaes, C. (eds) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate,
6-28.
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. & Needham, B. (eds) (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans:
Innovation in Europe, London: UCL Press.
Hopkins, L. D. (2001) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans, London: Island Press.
Jensen, O. B. & Richardson, T. (2004) Making European Space: mobility, power and territorial identity,
London and New York: Routledge.
Kitchin, R., Gleeson, J., Keaveney, K. & O’ Callaghan, C. (2010) A Haunted Landscape: Housing and
Ghost Estates in Post-Celtic Tiger Ireland, NIRSA Working Paper Series, 59, Maynooth: National
Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, National University of Ireland Maynooth.
Knieling, J. & Othengrafen, F. (2009) Preface: Spatial Planning and Culture – symbiosis for a better
understanding of cultural differences in planning systems, traditions and practices, in Knieling, J. &
Othengrafen. F. (eds) Planning Cultures in Europe. Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and
Regional Planning, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kunzmann, K. R. (2006) The Europeanisation of Spatial Planning, in Adams, N., Alden, J. & Harris, N.
(eds) Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate,
43-64.
Lloyd, G. M. & Peel, D. (2005) Tracing a Spatial Turn in Planning Practice in Scotland. Planning
Practice and Research, 20, (3), 313-325.
38
Maldonado, J. L. (2003) Metropolitan government and development strategies in Madrid, in Salet, W.,
Thornley, A. & Kreukels, A. (eds) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Comparative Case
Studies of European City-Regions, London and New York: Spon Press, 359-374.
Morphet, J. (2011) Effective Practice in Spatial Planning, London: Routledge.
Nadin, V. (2007) The Emergence of the Spatial Planning Approach in England, Planning Practice and
Research, 22, (1), 43-62.
Newman, P. & Thornley, A. (1996) Urban planning in Europe: International Competition, National
Systems, and Planning Projects, London, Routledge.
Pahl-Weber, E. & Henckel, D. (2008) The Planning System and Planning Terms in Germany – A
Glossary' Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ed.), Studies in Spatial Development, 7. Hanover.
RPGMT – Regionale Planungsgemeinschaft Mittelthüringen (2010) Modellvorhaben der Raumordnung,
http://www.regionalplanung.thueringen.de/rpg/mittel/themen_projekte/moro/ziel/index.asp, accessed
11/06/2010).
Salet, W. & Faludi, A. (eds) (2000) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, Amsterdam: Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Salet, W., Thornley, A. & Kreukels, A. (2003a) Institutional and Spatial Coordination in European
Metropolitan Regions, in Salet, W., Thornley, A. & Kreukels, A. (eds) Metropolitan Governance and
Spatial Planning: Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions, London and New York: Spon
Press, 3-19.
Sartorio, F. S. (2005) Strategic Spatial Planning: A Historical Review of Approaches, its Recent Revival,
and an Overview of the State of the Art in Italy, DISP – The Planning Review, 162 (3), 26-40.
Schmidt, S. (2009) Land Use Planning Tools and Institutional Change in Germany: Recent Developments
in Local and Regional Planning, European Planning Studies, 17, (12), 1907-1921.
39
Shaw, D. & Lord, A. (2007) The Cultural turn? Culture change and What it Means for Spatial Planning in
England, Planning Practice and Research, 22, 63–78.
Staats, J. (2006) The new concepts of spatial planning – possibilities for their implementation through
federal spatial planning, in BBR (ed.): Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, Issue 11/12.2006.
Sykes, O. (2008) The Importance of Context and Comparison in the Study of European Spatial Planning,
European Planning Studies, 16, (4), 537-555.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2004) The Planning Polity, London: Routledge.
The Federal Government (2002) Perspectives for Germany – Our Strategy for Sustainable Development,
Berlin.
The Federal Government (2008) For a Sustainable Germany – Progress Report 2008 on the National
Strategy for Sustainable Development, Berlin.
TLS (2007) Thüringer Landesamt für Statistik (TLS), 'Statistischer Bericht, Entwicklung der Bevölkerung
Thüringens von 2007 bis 2020 nach Kreisen – Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung'. Erfurt 2007.
http://www.tls.thueringen.de, accessed 27/05/2009. In German.
TLS (2009) Thüringer Landesamt für Statistik (TLS), 'Statistischer Bericht, Bruttoinlandsprodukt in
Thüringen 1998 bis 2008 – Ergebnisse der 2. Fortschreibung 2008'. Erfurt 2009.
http://www.tls.thueringen.de, accessed 27/05/2009. In German.
TMBLM (2009a) 'Raumbeobachtung'. Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung und Medien
(TMfBLM). http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmblm/rolp/raumbeobachtung/, accessed 16/07/2009. In
German.
TMBLM (2009b) 'Regionale Entwicklungskonzepte'. Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung
und Medien (TMfBLM). http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmblm/rolp/regentw/, accessed 16/07/2009. In
German.
40
TMBLM (2009c) 'Regionalmanagement'. Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung und
Medien (TMfBLM). http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmblm/rolp/regentw/, accessed 16/07/2009. In German.
TMBLM (2009d) 'Städtekooperationen'. Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung und Medien
(TMfBLM). http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmblm/rolp/regentw/, accessed 16/07/2009. In German.
Vanolo, A. (2010) European Spatial Planning Between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion:
Shadows of Neo-liberalism, European Planning Studies, 18, (8), 1301-1315.
Wiechmann, T. (2008) Errors Expected — Aligning Urban Strategy with Demographic Uncertainty in
Shrinking Cities, International Planning Studies, 13, (4), 431-446.